The Sexual Double Standard and Adolescent Stigma: A Sociometric and Comparative Approach

ABSTRACT

This study applied a sociometric approach to examine the traditional sexual double standard within a sample of Dutch adolescents (N = 1,175; 53.8% females; M_age = 14.75). Drawing on script theory and the key concept of social stigma, this study examined associations between self-reported sexual partnerships and three measures of peer preference: (1) received friendship nominations, (2) peer dislike nominations, and (3) perceived popularity. Results from ordinary least squares regressions support the traditional double standard, indicating that girls who report a higher number of self-reported sexual partners receive fewer friendships and more peer dislike nominations than boys reporting similar numbers of sexual partners. Sexual partnerships are positively associated with boys’ and girls’ perceived popularity. Using sociometric measures of peer stigma, we found evidence of a traditional sexual double standard in an adolescent sample from a liberal and gender egalitarian Western democracy, while also pointing to the potential status rewards associated with adolescent sexual behavior.

Introduction

The traditional sexual double standard, where girls are judged more harshly than boys for similar (hetero)sexual behaviors, has been of longstanding interest to social scientists due to its implications for persistent gender inequality and health disparities (Reiss, 1960). For adolescent girls, expectations of sexual passivity and gatekeeping constrain healthy sexual development and individual choices due to fears of social stigma and the “slut” label (Farvid et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2011). For boys, expectations of sexual dominance and permissiveness promote sexual risk-taking, the diminution of girls’ sexual agency, and the avoidance of committed romantic relationships (Pascoe, 2007). Although attitudes toward premarital sex have changed dramatically since Reiss (1960) first introduced the concept, research on the sexual double standard continues unabated and arguably has increased in recent years (for reviews, see Bordini & Sperb, 2013; Endendijk et al., 2020; Krems et al., 2021; Zaikman & Marks, 2017).

Continued scholarly interest in the sexual double standard is partly explained by the equivocal results of past research. Qualitative, observational, and self-report studies commonly find evidence of traditional sexual double standards among adolescents and young adults in the United States (Bordini & Sperb, 2013; Crawford & Popp, 2003). Alternatively, experimental vignette and attitudinal designs often find little evidence of a double standard, or even report a reverse double standard where sexually permissive men are perceived as less attractive than similarly permissive women (Marks & Fraley, 2005). These discrepancies point to the challenge of measuring a social construct subject to social desirability and demand biases or, in the case of vignette designs, threats to ecological validity (Endendijk et al., 2020; Marks et al., 2018).

Here we employ a sociometric approach to examine further the sexual double standard among adolescents. Stemming from the work of Moreno (1934), sociometry refers to the quantitative measurement of interpersonal relationships within groups, typically operationalized with peer-reported measures of social preference (see Cillessen, 2019, for a review). Kreager and Staff (2009) applied a sociometric approach to elucidate the adolescent sexual double standard using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Young Adult Health (Add Health). They correlated self-reported sexual partnerships with the friendship nominations received from school-based peers, among middle and high school youth in the mid-1990s. They found a pattern consistent with the sexual double standard: increased sexual partners were positively associated with boys’ received friendship nominations and negatively associated with girls’ received friendship nominations. By focusing on the assumed social consequences of the double standard rather than subjective beliefs, they argued that a sociometric approach overcomes several enduring methodological challenges of research in the area.

This study extends sexual double standard research by using a sociometric approach to directly operationalize the key concept of social stigma. We examined not only received friendship nominations, but also nominations of peer dislike that are more indicative of stigmatization processes. By incorporating dislike nominations, we argue that our analyses are better suited to investigate the gendered stigmatization associated with the traditional sexual double standard. If the double standard operates, sexually permissive girls should be more likely than sexually permissive boys to be disliked by peers – not just chosen less often as a friend. We also extend previous research by examining the association between adolescent sexual partnerships and received popularity nominations. The concept of perceived popularity has been shown to be distinct from sociometric acceptance (Cillessen, 2019) and may also have differential associations with adolescent sexual behaviors for girls and boys (Mayeux et al., 2008; van den Berg et al., 2020).

The bulk of research on the sexual double standard also focuses on data from the U.S., with little attention to other countries. The current study investigated the sexual double standard in a sample of Dutch adolescents. Comparative studies of the sexual double standard are infrequent and, as with research in the U.S. context, have produced mixed findings (Hensums et al., 2022; Sánchez-Fuentes et al., 2020). Because of its strong welfare state and more sex-positive social climate, the Netherlands provides an interesting context to explore adolescent sexual double standards, where double standards are expected to be weak, if present at all (Schalet, 2011). In sum, we provide clear contributions to sexual double standard research with a focus on multiple, theoretically relevant peer preference outcomes and adolescent sexual behavior in a Dutch context.

Sexual Script Theory and Stigma

To understand the social psychological basis of the sexual double standard, we draw from sexual script theory (Simon & Gagnon, 1984, 2003), a perspective that has evolved into a long-lasting and key approach for understanding human sexual behavior (Wiederman, 2015). This theory maintains that socially constructed scripts shape sexual behavior, where individuals in consensual, intimate encounters behave as actors who are engaged in a scripted performance. Moreover, sexual scripts provide guidelines for accepted, normative sexual behavior and involve cultural, interpersonal, and individual expectations. These scripts reflect shared beliefs within a specific group of people that develop into behavioral guidelines constructed socially over time. Cultural representations of sexual interaction, such as in the media, often reinforce societal sexual scripts (Laumann et al., 1994; Markle, 2008) and can influence women’s reactions to unwanted hookups (Gamble, 2019).

In Western cultures, scripts for sexual behavior diverge notably for men and women (Frith & Kitzinger, 2001; Wiederman, 2005). Beginning in childhood, boys are encouraged to explore their sexuality and, as they reach sexual maturity, initiate heterosexual activity, remain open to casual sex opportunities, and be capable of distancing themselves from a relationship with a partner. Girls, on the other hand, are often encouraged to suppress and gatekeep their sexuality, avoid casual, intimate encounters, and endorse sexual behavior only in the context of a committed relationship. Individuals can differ in the degree to which they align their behavior to follow these normative expectations, with some heterosexually active men and women veering from traditional expectations (Masters et al., 2013). Such unequal scripts also vary between cultures, with greater acceptance of the double standard among Russian young adults than among their Japanese or American counterparts (Sprecher & Hatfield, 1996), and less egalitarian sexual norms in Peru or Ecuador than in Spain (Álvarez-Muelas et al., 2022).

Individuals who depart from expected sexual scripts and norms are apt to be stigmatized by peers, particularly during the fishbowl experience of secondary education when adolescents begin exploring sexual identities and behaviors (Furman & Rose, 2015; Ryjova et al., 2021). Stigma refers to a phenomenon in which a person experiences social rejection due to disapproval by others of an individual’s attribute or behavior (Goffman, 1963). When possible, individuals will attempt to evade stigmatization by avoiding behaviors, including sexual activity, that counter accepted stereotypes. For example, it was found that fear of stigma mediates differences between the genders in heterosexual, informal encounters, with women less likely than men to accept offers of casual sex (Conley et al., 2012). In other situations, worries about stigma may lead people to engage in unwanted sexual encounters that reinforce certain cultural expectations. Some men, for instance, reported feeling pressure to feign sexual desire to avoid disappointing a female partner, because social perceptions of male sexual inadequacy result in stigmatization due to traditional, masculine norms (Murray, 2018).

Double Standard Research and its Limitations

Decades of quantitative research have produced inconsistent evidence for the prevalence and extent of traditional sexual double standards, likely because of methodological and measurement challenges facing research in this area. Following work by Reiss (1960), many studies used self-report questionnaires to ask respondents how they judged specific behaviors (e.g., many sexual partners, casual sex) exhibited by men versus women (Crawford & Popp, 2003). Reiss (1964) himself devised such a within-person research design, asking respondents’ personal attitudes about men’s and women’s sexual behaviors, finding that a significant minority of respondents endorsed a traditional double standard. Because subsequent studies with a similar approach often produced ambivalent results, scholars added questions about perceived sexual stereotypes (e.g., “Men have more sexual freedom than women”). These questions capture shared societal conceptions of sexual (in)equality rather than individual conceptions of specific behaviors and, on average, find stronger evidence for sexual double standards (Endendijk et al., 2020; Milhausen & Herold, 2002).

Another methodological concern related to within-person research designs is that, by asking about personally held attitudes, participants may exhibit social desirability or demand biases to appear more egalitarian (Marks & Fraley, 2005). Recent studies have sought to capture more implicit, or unconscious, sexual attitudes with either (1) between-person experimental designs where participants are assigned vignettes in which the gender and behaviors of hypothetical alters are randomly varied, or (2) divided attention designs where participants are randomly assigned vignettes with or without an added timed task (Marks, 2008). A recent meta-analysis of sexual double standard research found that studies with such implicit designs had stronger, although still modest in magnitude, evidence of sexual double standards (Endendijk et al., 2020).

A final methodological concern facing double standard research is that, by focusing on the behaviors of hypothetical men and women, most attitudinal and vignette studies lack ecological validity (Marks et al., 2018). Consistent with psychological studies of the gap between intentions and behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Sheeran, 2002), sexually egalitarian attitudes or evaluations of hypothetical actors’ behaviors may not translate into real world situations. To address this issue, Marks et al. (2018) asked a sample of young adults to evaluate the sexual behaviors of actual male or female friends and found evidence of a double standard, where women’s sexual behavior was viewed more negatively than men’s, and that the finding was stronger than in prior experimental vignette designs. This inconsistency between the laboratory and the real world might also explain why experimental results show far less evidence of a sexual double standard than do qualitative and interview studies of adolescent or young adult sexuality (Tolman, 2002; White, 2002).

Stigma Through a Sociometric Lens

If the sexual double standard operates in adolescent peer groups, then more sexually permissive girls should receive fewer peer friendship nominations than sexually permissive boys, as found previously in a U.S. sample (Kreager & Staff, 2009).

H1:

Gender moderates the association between sexual behavior and received peer friendship nominations, with girls receiving fewer friendship nominations than boys with sexual behavior held constant.

However, fewer friendships associated with girls’ sexual behaviors may not be the same thing as being disliked by peers for these behaviors. An assumption of the sexual double standard is that derogatory and stigmatizing labels demonstrate peer dislike of sexually permissive girls and sexually inexperienced boys (Pascoe, 2007). Translated into sociometric terms, the content of peer network nominations should then focus on peer dislike.

To better understand how gender may moderate the association between sexual behavior and peer antipathy, we parallel the approach to peer acceptance mentioned above by summing the number of dislike nominations individuals receive from peers and correlate this measure with self-reported sexual partnerships (LaFontana & Cillessen, 2002). This method takes a linear approach to peer dislike nominations and assumes that they are independent of peer acceptance.

H2:

Gender moderates the association between sexual behavior and received peer dislike nominations, with girls receiving more dislike nominations than boys with sexual behavior held constant.

Recent research has also found distinct behavioral patterns for children with many positive peer relationships (i.e., high sociometric peer acceptance) compared to those perceived as popular by peers (Cillessen, 2019). Although partially overlapping, peer-accepted children tend to be more friendly, kind, trustworthy, and cooperative, whereas those perceived as popular tend be more arrogant, “cool,” and physically or relationally aggressive (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Rose et al., 2004). Such distinctions may be particularly relevant for sexual behavior and peer status, because friends may judge such precocious behaviors more harshly than do adolescent peers more broadly, particularly when evaluating girls’ behaviors. For example, friends may respond to a girl’s increased sexual activity with feelings of fear, jealousy, or separation, whereas the wider peer group may view such behaviors as adult-like and socially rewarding (Allen et al., 2005).

Mayeux et al. (2008) examined associations between adolescent sexual behaviors, peer friendships, and perceived popularity in a sample of 389 12^th grade American adolescents from a mid-sized Northeastern city. Using longitudinal path models of social preference (standardized difference in “like most” and “like least” nominations), perceived popularity (standardized difference in “most popular” and “least popular” nominations), and sexual intercourse prevalence collected during the 10^th and 12^th grades, the authors found nonsignificant associations between the social preference scores and sexual intercourse. Yet, positive associations between 10^th grade perceived popularity and 12^th grade intercourse emerged for both boys and girls. Although their binary measure lacked variability in sexual behavior necessary to accurately test the sexual double standard, their findings (1) reemphasized the distinction between sociometric peer acceptance and perceived popularity and (2) suggest that enhanced perceptions of popularity increase access to sexual partners and intercourse opportunity. Similarly, Prinstein et al. (2003) examined the associations between sociometric peer acceptance, perceived popularity, and adolescent self-reported measures of sexual intercourse and oral sex, finding that respondents who engaged in either of the sexual behaviors were perceived as more popular, but not more liked, by peers. However, the authors also found that the number of self-reported sexual partners was negatively associated with both boys’ and girls’ perceived popularity and likability, suggesting a single (negative) sexual standard.

H3:

A positive association between sexual behavior and perceived peer popularity exists for both boys and girls.

The Dutch Context

Emblematic of most sexual double standard research, the studies listed above relied on surveys collected in the United States and thus may not generalize to other cultural contexts. A contribution of this study is that it used 2014 data collected from a school-based sample of Dutch adolescents. Cross-national comparisons of gender equality consistently rank the Netherlands as having a smaller gender gap than the United States. For example, the United Nations Development Program’s (2019) gender inequality index (GII) – which measures gender differences in mortality, adolescent birth rates, labor force participation, share in government, and secondary education – ranks the Netherlands 4^th most gender egalitarian and the United States 46^th, out of 189 countries.

There have been few empirical studies of adolescent sexual behavior in the Dutch context. A qualitative study (Schalet, 2011) compared parenting practices and adolescent sexual behaviors between Dutch and American parents (N_D = 34, N_A = 41) and teenagers (N_D = 36, N_A = 26). The study found that greater access to social welfare programs and sex education, the normalization of teenage sexuality, and integration of teenage and adult societies in the Netherlands softened, but did not completely eradicate, the sexual double standard. Schalet (2011) argued that the greater access to family planning services (e.g., birth control and abortion) in the Netherlands vs. the United States results in Dutch girls having greater sexual agency and less peer stigma associated with sexual desire. Similarly, she argued that Dutch boys are not discouraged or denigrated for falling in love or pursuing committed relationships. Paralleling differences in gender equality found at the national level, the more egalitarian views of sexuality by Dutch parents and adolescents reduce sexual double standards in the Netherlands compared with the United States (Schalet, 2011).

Agan et al. (2015) examined the cross-sectional correlations between risk behaviors (including sexual intercourse) and peer nomination measures of likability and popularity in Dutch and Austrian adolescent samples. The authors found that peer perceived popularity, but not likability, was positively associated with self-reported sexual intercourse, further supporting distinctions between the two measures of peer status. However, inconsistent with the sexual double standard, they also found that the associations did not vary by gender.

Another quantitative study (Endendijk et al., 2022) took a within-person approach to the sexual double standard among 566 Dutch adolescents (16–20 years old) who completed online surveys while at school. The sexual double standard scale included 16 items and asked respondents if boys/men, girls/women, or both boys/men and girls/women are equally likely to show behaviors such as “taking the initiative in sex,” “having different sexual partners at the same time,” and “having sex without love.” The authors found that both male and female respondents held similar traditional expectations about male and female sexual behaviors (e.g., expecting more sexual permissiveness from boys/men). Additionally, they found that the observed double standards were significantly correlated with perceived peer norms and exposure to sexualized media. Similar evidence was found for a traditional sexual double standard, particularly among boys, using a 20-item scale administered to 465 heterosexual Dutch adolescents (Emmerink et al., 2016).

Alternatively, a recent study (Hensums et al., 2022) administered parallel sexual double standard questions (e.g., “I admire a girl/boy who has sexual intercourse with multiple boys/girls,” “I pity a girl/boy who is still a virgin at 18,” and “It is fine if a girl/boy has sexual intercourse with a boy/girl without being in love”) to 455 Dutch adolescents aged 13 to 17 years old and found evidence for two double standards. Boys tended to endorse a traditional double standard (i.e., evaluating boys’ sexual behavior more liberally than similar behavior by girls), whereas girls tended to endorse a reverse double standard (i.e., evaluating girls’ sexual behavior more liberally than similar behavior by boys). As is the case in American research, the mixed or equivocal evidence from the few double standard studies of attitudes among Dutch adolescents necessitates further research.

Method

Participants

Data for this project come from the Peers and Emergence of Adolescent Romance (PEAR) study. The PEAR study focused on the measurement of self-reported romantic and sexual behaviors, along with the collection of peer nominations (from school rosters) of friendship, dislike, and perceived popularity for the purposes of social network analysis (McMillan et al., 2022). PEAR surveyed adolescents enrolled in five secondary schools located in two municipalities in the northern Netherlands (population of approximately 35,000) during the 2014–15 academic year. Although more ethnically homogenous than other parts of the country (less than 5% of the population is ethnically non-Dutch), mean family incomes in the region are close to the countrywide average (la Roi et al., 2020). All participants provided active consent and parents provided passive consent (i.e., opt-out) to the survey. Students completed paper-and-pencil surveys in their classrooms, and we focus our analyses on data collected during November of 2014.

Of the 2,159 students enrolled in the sampled schools, 1,882 (87%) took the survey. Consistent with other studies using these data (la Roi et al., 2020; McMillan et al., 2022, 2023), youth who attended a small vocational school were dropped from analyses (n = 74). The response rate in this school was only 60% due to the high number of students completing internships outside of the classroom. As the focus is on the social consequences of sexual behaviors for heterosexual adolescents, our sample excluded self-reported lesbian, gay, or bisexual youth (n = 46).¹ We also removed a small number of respondents who were outliers on age (i.e., under age 12 [n = 6] or 18 or older [n = 27]) to keep the focus on adolescence. We further excluded youth who were missing data on one or more of the predictors or outcomes, which brought our final sample size to 1,175 youth (632 girls and 543 boys). Table 1 shows sample descriptive statistics. Overall, the sample was 53.8% female, and the average age was 14.75 (ranging from ages 12 to 17.92). Note that a higher proportion of girls were in the analysis sample compared to the sample of youth who were excluded due to missing data, though the samples did not differ by age.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics.

	M or %	SD
Peer Nomination Outcomes (school-standardized)
Received friendship nominations	.00	1.00
Peer dislike nominations	.00	1.00
Perceived popularity	.00	1.00
Focal Predictors
Number of sexual partners in the past 9 months	.16	.53
Female	53.8%
Controls
Age	14.75	1.50
Drinking	2.25	1.04
Fighting	1.52	.75
Early pubertal timing	15.3%

N = 1,175.

Measures

Peer Nomination Outcome Variables

Each student was given a booklet listing all the pupils attending their school and was then asked to write in nominations for classmates who: 1) are their best friends; 2) they do not like; and 3) they think are popular. For each set of peer nomination data (i.e., friendship, dislike, and perceived popularity), each student was able to nominate up to 25 individuals, approximating unlimited nominations as no respondents filled in all possible nominations. To isolate the association between sexual partnerships and peer nominations, we removed nominations received from individuals they nominated as sexual partners. To compare results across the four school settings, we standardized outcome variables within each school. The first outcome was operationalized as the number of best friend nominations youth received (i.e., friendship indegree)² from their school-based peers, standardized within each school. The average girl received 7.1 (SD = 3.4) friendship nominations, whereas the average boy received 6.7 (SD = 3.7) nominations. This gender difference was not statistically significant (p = .052). Our second outcome was a continuous measure of the number of dislike nominations individuals received from peers, again standardized within each school. Prior to standardization, the average girl received 2.2 (SD = 2.8) dislike nominations and the average boy received 2.3 (SD = 2.9) similar nominations. This gender difference was also not statistically significant (p = .72). The final outcome variable, perceived popularity, was operationalized as the number of popularity nominations individuals received (i.e., indegree) from their school-based peers, standardized by school. The average boy received 2.8 (SD = 3.5) popularity nominations and the average girl received 2.2 (SD = 3.5) similar nominations. This gender difference was statistically significant (p < .01). In Table 2, we provide a correlation matrix of the study variables, separately for girls and boys. For girls and boys, received friendship nominations were positively associated with perceived popularity (r_girls = .34, r_boys = .47), and negatively associated with dislike nominations (r_girls = −.07, r_boys = −.06). Dislike nominations and perceived popularity were positively correlated for girls and boys (r_girls = .27, r_boys = .19).

Table 2. Correlations between study variables, separately for girls (below the diagonal; N = 632) and boys (above the diagonal; N = 543).

	Friend	Dislike	Popular	SexPart	Age	Drink	Fight	EarlyPT
Received friendship nominations	–	−.06	.47	.07	−.04	.16	.05	.08
Peer dislike nominations	−.07	–	.19	.11	−.05	.05	.23	.07
Perceived popularity	.34	.27	–	.20	.01	.20	.17	.03
Number of sexual partners	−.08	.15	.13	–	.26	.30	.29	.17
Age	−.12	.05	−.06	.26	–	.54	−.01	.04
Drinking	.03	.10	.19	.38	.51	–	.16	.13
Fighting	.00	.20	.05	.09	−.04	.13	–	.17
Early pubertal timing	−.02	.09	.06	.00	.03	.05	.02	–

Number of Sexual Partners

Of particular interest for this study, respondents identified, from school rosters, their romantic relationship partners in the 9 months prior to the survey administration and, for each, indicated whether they had engaged in sexual intercourse (i.e., penis inserted into the vagina). Since only 2% of respondents reported more than 2 sex partners over the past 9 months, we recoded the variable to range from 0 to 3 or more. The mean number of sex partners was slightly higher for boys (M_girls = .14, M_boys = .19), though this gender difference was not statistically significant (p = .14). However, as shown in Table 2, the correlation of number of sex partners with the peer nomination variables varies by gender. For instance, the association between the number of sex partners and received friendship nominations is negative for girls (r = −.08) and positive for boys (r = .07). Number of sex partners is positively associated with dislike nominations for girls and boys (r_girls = .15, r_boys = .11), and perceived popularity (r_girls = .13, r_boys = .20).

Control Variables

In our models, we included demographic and behavioral characteristics, particularly those related to disruptive or oppositional behaviors, that prior research found correlated with peer status, gender, and sexual behavior, potentially making gendered associations between sexual partnerships and peer status spurious (Bierman, 2004). In addition to age, we included measures of alcohol use frequency (M = 2.25; five-point scale ranging from “I have never drunk alcohol, not even a sip” to “I drink alcohol every day”), and fighting frequency in the past year (M = 1.52; five-point scale ranging from “never” to “more than 12 fights”). As shown in Table 2, drinking frequency for boys was positively associated with friendship nominations (r = .16), popularity (r = .20), and number of sexual partnerships (r = .30). For girls, drinking frequency was positively associated with dislike nominations (r = .10), popularity (r = .19), and number of sexual partnerships (r ₌ .38). Fighting frequency, for both girls and boys, was associated with dislike nominations (r_girls = .20, r_boys = .23), and is positively correlated with number of sexual partnerships, especially for boys (r_girls = .09, r_boys = .29).

We also included a measure of early pubertal timing (PT) as there exists qualitative evidence that adolescents who develop earlier than their peers are perceived as sexually permissive, risk-takers, and garner sexual labels regardless of their actual sexual behavior (Tolman, 2002; White, 2002). PT is a binary variable that compares the pubertal development of boys and girls to their same-age classmates. PT uses the pubertal development scale (Petersen et al., 1988), which assesses growth spurts, skin changes, and pubic hair (both boys and girls), menstruation and breast development (girls), and changes in voice and facial hair (boys)(α_girls = .73, α_boys = .71). Early PT girls and boys (15.3%) scored over 1 SD above the mean of this additive scale relative to their same age and same sex peers. Early PT among boys was positively associated with drinking frequency (r = .13), fighting frequency (r = .17), and number of sexual partnerships (r = .17), whereas these associations were weaker for girls.

Analytic Strategy

We estimated Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models of our school-standardized and continuous dependent variables: peer friendship, peer dislike, and perceived popularity. To test for a traditional double standard, we then introduced an interaction term between sexual partnerships and gender in each of the models. This allowed us to examine whether the relationship between the number of sexual partnerships and each of the dependent variables differed by gender, potentially indicating different consequences for similar behaviors among boys and girls.

Results

Peer Friendship, Peer Dislike, and Perceived Popularity

Table 3 presents OLS estimates of received friendship nominations, peer dislike nominations, and perceived popularity. For each outcome, we estimated models without (Model 1) and with (Model 2) an interaction term between sexual partnerships and gender. For the first set of columns presenting estimates of friendship nominations, the interaction of female and number of sexual partners was statistically significant and negative (β = −.31), net of other covariates, and an F-test confirmed an improvement in model fit with the inclusion of this interaction (F[1, 1167] = 7.71; p < .01). Figure 1 shows expected values for peer friendships based on the estimates in Table 3. Girls, but not boys, showed significant, notable declines in predicted friendships with increased numbers of sex partners. Among the covariates, younger students received significantly more friendship nominations than older students, and peer nominations were higher among youth who drank frequently. Fighting and early puberty did not significantly predict peer friendship nominations.

Figure 1. Predicted values for school-standardized friendship nominations.

Table 3. OLS regression models of received friendship nominations, peer dislike nominations, and perceived popularity (n = 1,175).

Predictors	Outcome: Received Friendship Nominations				Outcome: Peer Dislike Nominations				Outcome: Perceived Popularity
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2
	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se	b	se
Sexual partners	−.03	(.06)	.10	(.08)	.16**	(.06)	.06	(.08)	.23***	(.06)	.26**	(.07)
Female	.17**	(.06)	.22***	(.06)	.08	(.06)	.05	(.06)	−.09	(.06)	−.08	(.06)
Female x Sexual partners			−.31**	(.11)			.23*	(.11)			−.06	(.11)
Controls
Age	−.12***	(.02)	−.12***	(.02)	−.02	(.02)	−.02	(.02)	−.12***	(.02)	−.12***	(.02)
Drinking	.19***	(.03)	.19***	(.03)	.03	(.03)	.03	(.03)	.23***	(.03)	.23***	(.03)
Fighting	−.01	(.04)	−.02	(.04)	.26***	(.04)	.27***	(.04)	.06	(.04)	.06	(.04)
Early PT	.06	(.08)	.04	(.08)	.15	(.08)	.16*	(.08)	.04	(.08)	.05	(.08)
Constant	1.23***	(.32)	1.23***	(.32)	−.21	(.32)	−.21	(.32)	1.21***	(.31)	1.21***	(.31)
R^2	.038		.044		.059		.075		.085		.082
F-test (Model 2 vs Model 1)			7.71**				4.32*				.34

OLS = ordinary least squares; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

The middle columns of Table 3 show OLS estimates of dislike nominations received from school-based peers. The interaction of female and number of sexual partners was statistically significant and positive (β = .23), net of other covariates. The inclusion of the interaction also improved the model fit (F[1, 1167] = 4.32; p < .05). To help with interpretation, Figure 2 shows expected values for peer dislike nominations based on the estimates in Table 3. Girls, but not boys, showed significant increases in predicted peer dislike nominations with increased numbers of sexual partners. Turning to the control variables, dislike nominations were higher among youth who experienced early puberty and those who fought frequently.

Figure 2. Predicted values for school-standardized peer dislike nominations.

The final set of columns in Table 3 presents OLS estimates that predict standardized popularity nominations. Sexual partnerships were positively associated with perceived popularity (β = .23). The interaction between sexual partnerships and gender, however, was not statistically significant, and the inclusion of the interaction term did not significantly improve model fit (F[1, 1167] = 0.34; p = .56), suggesting that sexual partnerships were associated with more popularity nominations for both boys and girls. Perceived popularity was also positively correlated with drinking and negatively associated with age.

Discussion

Double standards for men’s and women’s sexual behaviors have been associated with a host of problematic outcomes, including dating violence and sexual coercion (Shen et al., 2012; Sierra et al., 2009), stigma and backlash (Conley et al., 2012), sexual risk-taking (Pascoe, 2007), consenting to unwanted sexual activities (Quinn-Nilas & Kennett, 2018), and broader societal gender inequality (Reiss, 1960). Using a sociometric approach, we contribute to this literature with evidence of a sexual double standard among adolescents residing in the Netherlands, a generally liberal and egalitarian country. We found that gender moderated the association between sexual partnerships and peer friendship nominations (H1) and peer dislike nominations (H2). Our results are consistent with several prior Dutch attitudinal survey studies (Emmerink et al., 2016; Endendijk et al., 2022; Hensums et al., 2022), and suggest that sexual double standards persist even in a more liberal and gender egalitarian cultural context. These findings are also aligned with recent studies that find pervasive evidence of sexual double standard attitudes and stereotypes (i.e., Endendijk et al., 2020; Krems et al., 2021).

The associations between sexual partnerships and peer dislike are particularly noteworthy. Not only do additional sexual partners seem to dampen girls’ friendship nominations, but such behaviors are likely to result in girls, and not boys, being stigmatized and marginalized by peers. Peer dislike, we argue, better approximates the stigmatization (Goffman, 1963) process crucial to understanding the sexual double standard.

The observed gender differences persist net of covariates commonly correlated with peer sociometric status, gender, and sexual behaviors, such as physical aggression and drinking frequency. Particularly interesting for the sexual double standard is that early pubertal timing had a negative association with peer dislike independent of sexual behavior. In other words, youth who are more physically developed than their peers are at increased risk of negative peer interactions regardless of their sexual behavior. This finding is consistent with Tolman’s (2002) observations that early-developing girls were likely to garner unprovoked “slut” labels even before they were sexually active, along with the (often unwanted) sexual attention from older boys. Gender differences in the association between pubertal timing, peer relationships, and subsequent behavior (e.g., dating, intercourse, and delinquency) is of theoretical interest and requires further research attention.

In addition, our findings regarding perceived popularity and sexual behavior are intriguing (H3). As opposed to friendship nominations, increased sexual partnerships were significantly and positively associated with peers’ perceptions of popularity for both boys and girls. There thus arises an apparent paradox for girls, where sexual permissiveness is simultaneously associated with fewer friendships and greater peer dislike, but also modest increases in social visibility. These seemingly contradictory patterns are similar to earlier findings (Mayeux et al., 2008) and suggest that pseudo-mature behaviors, such as drinking and sex, increase boys’ and girls’ peer status without strengthening friendship ties or, in the case of girls and sex, result in fewer friendships and increased peer dislike. That sexual permissiveness is associated with potential status benefits provides a possible explanation for behavior that is, for girls, non-normative and comes at the cost of lost friends.

Note that our findings provide evidence of unequal treatment of sexual behavior for girls and boys, but at the same time, they do not demonstrate that boys consistently benefit from having multiple sexual partners. Although increased numbers of sexual partners appear to enhance boys’ perceived popularity and are positively associated with friendship nominations, additional partners are associated with boys’ peer dislike (although at a much lower rate than girls). Our findings imply that Dutch girls are more prone to experience social disadvantages associated with multiple sexual relationships, but that their male counterparts are not left entirely unscathed. In other words, there are bounds to the parameters of the double standard in this sample of Dutch youth.

In sum, our main findings are consistent with sexual script theory and suggest that traditional sexual scripts that diverge for men and women likely guide adolescents’ sexual behavior and its consequences (Simon & Gagnon, 1984; Wiederman, 2015), even in a liberal and gender egalitarian societal context such as the Netherlands. Girls who depart from expected heterosexual scripts by having multiple sexual partners are subject to greater social disapproval than their male counterparts. Sociocultural theories that underscore the cultural, structural, and historical factors that frame and contribute to gender inequality (e.g., Ridgeway, 2011; Wood & Eagly, 2002) are also informative. Historically, girls have been encouraged to delay sexual engagement and to discourage multiple sexual encounters, in part due to concerns about pregnancy, whereas boys have been expected to initiate sexual activity and “sow their wild oats.” Slut-shaming continues to be experienced widely by girls (Hill & Kearl, 2011), particularly online where social media users employ words such as “slut” and “whore” to attack and degrade women (Felmlee et al., 2020). Evolutionary forces also may play a role according to recent research on the pervasiveness of stereotypes about women (but not men) who engage in casual sex (Krems et al., 2021). Given that biologically, women have faced greater potential costs than men associated with multiple sex partners, assumptions may be made that women are pursuing these activities because they cannot obtain a committed relationship, and therefore encounter disapproval. Furthermore, structural inequality, in which men wield more powerful and privileged positions worldwide, facilitates such gender disparities (Risman, 2004). Although the Netherlands tends to be more egalitarian than most countries, Dutch adolescents enter a global, male-dominated world, and they confront forms of international, sexualized media that are not impervious to broader, cultural trends.

Our research contributes to controversies regarding the state of the sexual double standard. First, as far as we are aware, we are the first to apply a sociometric approach to investigate the stigmatization processes underlying the sexual double standard by examining the crucial outcomes of peer dislike nominations. Second, we examined gender moderation in the association between sexual partnerships and perceived popularity, finding that these differ from those found for peer friendship and dislike. Finally, we update past research by exploring sex and peer relations in a sample from a liberal and gender egalitarian Western democracy. In sum, our study bridges several sociological and developmental traditions with a dataset that permitted us to operationalize an array of peer sociometric concepts as related to adolescent sexual behavior.

Although our work has notable advantages, it is not without limitations. First, drawing causal conclusions is inherently challenging when working with cross-sectional non-experimental data. Sexual behaviors could result from peer relations rather than the reverse. For example, girls disliked by peers might engage in precocious sexual behavior to receive romantic partner acceptance. Future longitudinal analyses could disentangle the timing of behavioral and peer change. Even though threats to temporal ordering exist, it is worth noting that time references in the questionnaire were consistent with the hypothesized ordering of concepts. The sexual partnership items referenced the nine months prior to survey administration and thus occurred prior to the peer relation outcomes measured contemporaneous with the survey (i.e., friendship, dislike, and perceived popularity nominations), thus ameliorating some of the threat of reverse causality. And although it remains possible that peer-disliked girls sought sexual partnerships to increase self-worth or highly-liked boys had more sexual partnership opportunities than their peers (i.e., reversing the hypothesized causal ordering between sexual behavior and friendships), the gendered association between sexual behavior and peer status would nevertheless affirm broader sexual labels and stigmatization processes.

It is also worth noting that our fully-specified models explained less than 10% of the total variance in our peer status measures. There is limited prior research predicting peer nominations to compare our model fit statistics, but clearly our covariates do not fully explain the peer status outcomes. Future longitudinal analyses focused on predictions of change may better account for unobserved between-person differences in peer status and better predict these outcomes (Kreager et al., 2016; Prinstein et al., 2011; Wesche et al., 2019).

In addition, our study focused only on peer relations and heterosexual sexual partnerships. The PEAR study included only 46 self-reported gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth, and thus our analyses were unable to speak to possible double standard processes that might apply to those in same-sex relationships, an important topic for future research. Furthermore, our measure of self-reported sexual partnerships may create bias, either because respondents lie about their behaviors or because peers are unaware of respondents’ sexual behaviors. Misreporting bias was somewhat alleviated, however, by having respondents nominate specific sexual partners rather than merely providing a total number of sexual partnerships, the latter providing opportunities to dramatically exaggerate sexual activity (see The National Study of Adolescent and Young Adult Health). However, it remains unknown if peers are aware of respondents’ actual sexual activity and number of partners. We assume that the patterns we observed are picking up on self-reported behavior or third-party gossip circulating through peer networks, but it is unclear what sexual partnerships are known or remain secret during the observed period. One way to better understand the correspondence between actual and peer-perceived sexual behaviors would be to correlate self-reported behaviors with aggregate peer reports of perceived sexual permissiveness. Such data should be collected with caution, however, as it may reinforce existing stereotypes and labels of (perceived) non-conformity.

Data limitations also forced us to focus on sexual intercourse in romantic relationships. Our analyses did not include non-intercourse sexual behaviors (e.g., oral and anal sex) and intercourse in casual relationships or “hookups.” However, as researchers typically predict double standards to be greater in non-romantic sexual contexts (Bordini & Sperb, 2013; Jonason & Marks, 2009), our results are likely conservative and future research may find even stronger evidence of sexual double standards when including non-romantic (and likely less frequent) sexual behaviors.

Final limitations concern the national representativeness and possible datedness of this study’s sample. Although the Netherlands is associated with more liberal gender policies and attitudes overall, our sample from a smaller and geographically isolated Dutch city may be more conservative compared with the larger cities in the south of the country, and thus perhaps more like adolescents in the United States. Additionally, the data set was collected approximately a decade ago, and so we again encourage replication of our approach in a wider array of current adolescent contexts to ensure generalizability of the findings across time.

In conclusion, we uncover notable vestiges of the sexual double standard in a liberal and egalitarian Western democracy. Our results highlight the robust roots of gender inequality, especially regarding the sexual activity of women. At the same time, we see here hints of societal change, with young men not necessarily benefitting socially from the same behavior that disadvantages young women. Future work is needed to examine the degree to which the double standard remains relatively robust or begins to display wider cracks in response to cross-cultural changes. We thus call for more research that focuses on key negative social consequences of sexual activity, such as peer dislike and stigma, that lie at the heart of the sexual double standard.

Acknowledgments

We thank Jan Kornelis Dijkstra, Chaim la Roi, and Ruta Savickaitė for collecting the data. The data collection was funded by the NWO Research Talent Program (project number: 406-12-022). Requests to use the PEAR data can be sent to René Veenstra: [email protected].

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ Note that the survey did not ask about transgender, asexual, or non-binary gender and sexual identities.

² In social network theory, indegree refers to the number of social ties received by an actor from others in a directed social network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).